Approaches To Unseen Text

CONTENTS

PAGE

FOREWORD AND INTRODUCTION 3

PART ONE: GAINING EXPERIENCE: THE VARIETY OF STYLES. 4

NATURALISM: FOR WHICH STANISLAVSKI WOULD BE APPROPRIATE 5

EPIC PLAYS: WHICH INCLUDE BRECHTIAN FEATURES 11

PLAYS WITH DREAM-LIKE, SURREAL QUALITIES, SUITABLE FOR ARTAUD, GROTOWSKI, CRAIG, OR BROOK 19

COMEDY 27

PLAYS IN VERSE OR HEIGHTENED LANGUAGE 38

THE GREAT MAJORITY OF TWENTIETH CENTURY PLAYS WHICH TAKE FROM A RICH MIX OF INFLUENCES 46

SUMMARY OF FIRST APPROACHES TO UNSEENS - THE FINDINGS FROM PART ONE 55

A QUICK STYLE TEST 56

PART TWO: LOOKING AT TYPICAL INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS 60

SET DESIGN 60

TECHNICAL ELEMENTS68

ACTING QUESTIONS 69

STAGING A SECTION AS DIRECTOR 78

THE COMPULSORY QUESTION 83

TWO FULL-LENGTH PRACTICE EXAM PIECES 88

2

FOREWORD

The more I have worked on this book, the more I have become convinced that this is the right approach to the whole syllabus - and the best starting-point for ANY syllabus. All syllabuses require an understanding of all aspects of theatre and of styles and that is what this book tries to do. Of course, there are many references to the AQA examination, since that was my starting-point, but the work in these pages would be an invaluable starting-point to any theatre course, because of its emphasis on both practical work and play analysis from the director’s, designer’s and actor’s point of view.

Also, though the Unseen Text AQA test occurs as part of the A2 examination process, I would suggest that the work here is started long before - right at the beginning of a sixth from course - whether you are studying this syllabus or another. The work is useful for all and will teach any student a lot about theatre in general and about how to approach a text of any kind. The wide variety of plays covered will be an eye-opener to many students and be a useful resource for any drama department.

INTRODUCTION

The Unseen part of the AQA syllabus has always been a stumbling block for many candidates. Often quite high-flyers in other areas will fall down on their marks in this section of the exam alone. This guide is an attempt to address this problem and give some methods of working for this difficult part of the exam.

As always with all areas of this ‘A’ level, the best approach is to be as practical as possible. This exam tests the students’ ability to read a piece of playtext and to be able instantly to visualise it - to see it coming to life in the mind’s eye. It is a sophisticated test and one that many adults without much practical experience would balk at. But it is a fair test providing the students have been trained throughout their course to do everything in a hands-on practical fashion.

Yes, I know that in the actual examination, the students will have to sit and write, but the ability to visualise a script is not a natural skill for many - it is something that should be learned through experience - as much experience as possible with as many different styles of script as you can lay your hands on. And this experience must be carried out practically, for then the students have much to call on. Note the insistence always that: ‘You should refer explicitly to relevant experience of drama and theatre in your answer.’ This is stated as a part of every question and should help you realise that to answer this question successfully, the students need to be crammed with as much ‘experience’ as possible in the hopes that some part of it will prove ‘relevant’ when the time for the test comes.

Experience of course covers both ‘seeing’ and ‘doing.’ Schools who are not in an area rich with all types of drama should not worry too much; of course a variety of professional productions would be helpful but the students need also to experience what it is like to participate in as many styles as they can - exploring acting, directing and technical application. And no, I am not suggesting that the poor over-stressed youngsters should put on numerous productions - that would clearly not be feasible. What I am suggesting could fit into a short course, which this book aims to give you.

Any other experience over and above this can only be beneficial. Encourage them to see anything they can - other schools’ productions [I still don’t understand why more schools don’t tell neighbouring schools about anything they are putting on - sharing experience like this would be so helpful], amateur productions and, of course, as many professional pieces as they can. Most areas are within reach of a number of the excellent touring productions that go around the country every year. If you can’t always organise trips, at least encourage the students to go under their own steam whenever they can. And take in the strange and wacky as much as the more traditional offerings. In fact, the wackier the better - this will give the kind of variety of experience these studentsneed.

3

GAINING EXPERIENCE: THE VARIETY OF STYLES

In my opinion, the right approach to this area of the course is once again, and always, through practice first and only then is the time , out of the understanding gained practically, to move into written work.

To start the course, try to cover as many styles of theatre as you can. Of course, you are free to use your own library of plays, but for those who do not have extensive resources, I have tried to include snippets from as many plays as possible. The board tend not to use period plays - though the syllabus does not state that they won’t. I suspect anything where the language is too difficult at a first reading would be considered unfair to use as an unseen. I have concentrated therefore on plays from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries - at least through a modern translation.

Covering as many plays and styles in this way will increase the students’ particular personal ‘file’ for reference and enable the part of the syllabus that states ‘They must refer explicitly to other plays, practical experience and/or theatrical ideas encountered throughout the course to illustrate their answers....’ to be broached.

There is not a great deal of point in expecting students to identify all the kind of labels that critics are fond of: kitchen sink drama, anger, absurd, cruelty etc. This would be expecting too much. However, it is possible to identify broader styles of theatre and this will be very helpful. This is the starting point, then; establishing the main ingredients of a particular style. It must always be recognised, though, that there are cross-overs at all times; this is why simple labels do not work. Many plays, best approached with a naturalistic acting style will share features of other styles in their presentation. For the purpose of this examination, that is all to the good. An unseen play may contain Brechtian features and those of Stanislavski, for instance, AT THE SAME TIME. Indeed many modern plays are a rich mixture of styles and influences which should be seen as a help, not a hindrance, to the students. Providing they are trained throughout at spotting these influences and cross-referring with their own experience all the time, they will have no problem.

4

Extract One

HELMER Very well. But now, tell me, little spendthrift, what do you want for Christmas?NORA Me? Oh, pooh, I don’t want anything.Now, consider the following question as a whole group, through discussion:

What features do these three extracts have in common? Consider what you

notice about the stage directions - in general - and what you notice about the

characterisation - in general.

[Here is a teacher’s check-list for the above:Detailed stage directions, often with very specific moves suggested. Detailed descriptions of setting, which in all three cases suggest ‘real’ places, detailed furniture and props, etc.The characters depict ‘real’ people in that the playwright has made every attempt to give them credibility through the language they use [appropriate to status and class, for instance] and the descriptions given of them in the stage directions.]

These two areas are the ground-base for the naturalistic style - and the style can usually easily be spotted through the detailed stage directions alone. For those who do not study Stanislavski, it is important here that they should have some idea of what naturalism as approached by this practitioner stands for.

Stanislavski believed in making every attempt to discover and illumine what the playwright was trying to do with his play. In other words, he believed in being true to the text, not in imposing a directorial idiosyncratic slant on it.

He wanted to give characters depth and psychological reality, by seeking to disclose their hidden motivations and what is going on in their head - which will then be revealed by the manner in which they act on stage and will dictate how the lines are delivered.

Every effort was made to make characters, their dress and the settings ‘real’ and accurate as to period detail. Naturalistic plays are supposed to be ‘slices of real life’.

In each of the three extracts quoted, a Stanislavskian approach would be entirely appropriate and those who have studied Stanislavski could refer to his System in their written answers as part of the proof of their ‘theatrical ideas encountered...’

Bearing this in mind, without the need to labour through the System, help the students realise the psychological implications of a character through the following:

Look at the last few lines of the first extract from where Jenny asks ‘Where’s

Ronnie?’ Ask them to read it aloud as if:

Jenny dislikes Ronnie, suspecting him of mucking her sister around

Jenny is in awe of him and excited about the prospect of him as part of the family

Beatie knows the relationship is on the rocks but doesn’t want to talk about it

Beatie trusts Ronnie absolutely and is sure he will eventually marry her

In extract B, look once again at the last part, after Masha exits.

Try Fyokla’s character once she is alone with Chekhov:

flirtatiously, saucily - she is the sort of person who will flirt with and tease any man

really not very quick in the brain area at all, as well as being very tired, so that she is

struggling for answers that will not get her into trouble

In extract C, look at just after the opening, from where Nora tiptoes across and

listens at her husband’s door.

Choose someone to act this move out, plus the line following, as if:

Nora is feeling guilty and is frightened of her husband

8

Extract Two

Now try some very brief practical exercises to help fix some of these features in the mind.In pairs, one acting as Mrs Johnstone and one first as a director and then as Mrs

Lyons, show how you would indicate the change of place and the start of the story

at the end of the extract. Clearly, Mrs Lyons is better-off than Mrs Johnstone; how

can the character show this just through the way she enters? [For those trained in

Brecht, this is ‘Gestus.’]

Try also as a solo, the change from Narrator to Milkman - how can this be quickly

established? Pick a line from each role to show the difference in tone of voice,

accent, etc.

There is nothing naturalistic about the extract given of ‘Blood Brothers.’ Arguably, though, the conversation between Carol and her Mother is, in a bleak way, naturalistic - and there are directions, such as Carol drying her clothes, ironing and dressing herself, which, though lacking detail, could be made naturalistic. In pairs, work through the dialogue shown here, trying it in a

naturalistic style. What difficulties did they encounter? I suspect they’ll find themselves brought up short against the repeated lines, which impose a kind of rhythm that intrudes on any naturalistic way of saying them. Then there is the direct address to the audience of the last line from the Mother which breaks the previous more naturalistic section. Make sure this last part is

explored as well as the rest of the scene and discuss what effect it has.

Finally, compare the two entrances of Basho, showing him ‘walking older’ the

second time around. Show a part of each of the two speeches he makes on

entering, too. What is the tone of both? Has Basho changed and how should this

be shown in movement and voice? Work in pairs for this exercise, each taking turns

at being actor and director.

These exercises should be enough to prove how important it is to spot the clues in the unseen text, which indicate the right style for the play. For some plays, there is definitely a ‘wrong’ style. These three extracts would not work in a naturalistic style and a student must be able to recognise this and write appropriately as director, designer or actor. I don’t believe, however, that it is too difficult to spot, providing you are alert to the clues in the way the piece is written.

Now divide the class up into small groups and allocate one of the extracts to each group. They should all do the following:1. Using whatever is lying around the studio, even if just chairs or blocks, come up

with a setting that is suitable for your piece. If you feel that no setting is required at

all, discuss in your group the atmosphere being aimed for and how that could be

achieved: Lighting? Sound? Props? Effects? In some cases, such as ‘Road’, you

might need to think of a setting and an atmosphere. In Narrow Road...’ you might

just want to consider an effect - or you might want to suggest river, village, city ....

and if so - how?

Each group is to prepare a statement to present to the rest of the class

describing the decisions they have made and justifying them by direct reference to

the script.

2. Move the characters through the scene, deciding on entrances, exits and moves

within the scene from one area to another. What difficulties did they encounter?

What discoveries were made?

Once again, it is best if they present their findings to the rest of the group -

with practical demonstration. For instance, they might need to demonstrate how

17

Extract Three

Finding the features in common of these three extracts is going to be harder, but as with the work we have done so far, it ought to be attempted. So, through group discussion, see a.] what they

can come up with as identifying marks for these three very different passages and

b.] what Brechtian and Stanislavskian influences they can spot, if any, and

c.] Do they think that a knowledge of Stanislavskian or Brechtian techniques might

help in performing any of these extracts?

As before, below is a teacher’s checklist for this exercise.

a.] Probably they will say that all three have a sense of wierdness, or something surreal about them. I hope they might say something along the lines of there being more imaginative input required from director, actor and designers. The three passages are less confined to a particular style; there is a freedom about them. They are not ‘safe’ texts, firmly rooted in known human experience.b & c.] ‘Dark of the Moon’ is written in a strong hillbilly accent - which does confine it to a particular area in the U.S.A. - the same kind of mountainous wild terrain as the ‘70s film ‘Deliverance’ is set against. The stage directions do indicate quite a detailed background, which could be done naturalistically. [In the actual play, scenes on the mountain are sandwiched between scenes in the village so too realistic a setting would not work - but the students faced with an Unseen do not know this and can only work with what they are given.]

The sparse furnishings mentioned in the stage directions of ‘A Kind of Alaska seem to show an indication of place rather than too much detail. [It is worth telling them that the style of the piece - the pauses and silences - are a trademark of Pinter’s and that this style has found its way into modern theatre language. This kind of bleak style - with its many pauses and silences is ‘Pinteresque.’ A pause is shorter than a silence. In some plays of Pinter’s even more variation of pauses are indicated: short pause = 1 beat; pause = 2 beats; long pause = 3 beats; silence = 5 beats. This is my own approximation.] Though not naturalistic, a kind of naturalism can be imposed on this style, mainly through the actors who have to make sense of what they are saying. I actually feel quite strongly that a Stanislavskian approach to sub-text and to finding a logical ‘through-line’ would be essential to performing this piece. It is written in this way to reflect the scattered thoughts and impressions of a woman coming out of a long coma. She flips between her child self and a gradual awareness of her situation. Memories come thick and fast and in no particular order. Pauses and silences shouldn’t be empty - we should see in the faces of the characters, their eyes, their body language, what their inner thought processes are.

There are many Brechtian features in the Complicite piece: the narrative style means that characters talk to the audience; they drop character to talk about themselves in the third person; we know about the death of the characters in advance and that this is all a ‘story,’ something that has already happened. The language is spare at times - though more poetic than would be usual at others; there is song, change of location, and minimal setting.

Because the syllabus requires this constant cross-referring of styles and influences encountered on the course, it is important to do the above exercise - but then it is also important to remind them of the first part of the discussion: what did the three pieces have in common? - and bring them back to the imagination and freedom required in the staging and performance of them. Any knowledge they have of Brook [who put on a production of ‘Dark of the Moon’ in 1949 - but who might choose to do it in a very different way now], Artaud, Grotowski or Craig might prove useful. For those who know nothing of these practitioners, here are some brief handles for them to use as reference:

Craig as a designer is useful here. The kernel of Craig’s work boils down to the creation of atmosphere: he designed sets, light, costume, and so on which enhanced the actors’ work on stage and created a symbolic, non-realistic setting. It is the combination of these elements that is important. Craig propounds a kind of ‘total’ theatre, in overall charge of a director, who is responsible for everything. Out of this comes unity: the actor, lights, costume, sound and set combine and work together. For some productions he used gauzes and cloths to create a setting and for others architectural shapes that towered above the actors, dwarfing them [as he proposed for ‘Hamlet’,for instance, to symbolise the doom or insurmountable odds that colour the play and that are bigger than

24

the characters themselves.] Brooding shapes, huge moveable screens, lights directed to create pools of light and shadow, costumes that blended in colour and texture with the rest of the design, flights of steps and different levels - these are easy enough to remember, even for one who has not studied Craig.

Artaud sprang out of the Surrealist movement. He tries to evoke the atmosphere of dreams and nightmares. His theatre is also a ‘total theatre’ where acting, light, sound and setting combine to unsettle an audience. A director following his ideas would want to create surprising visual images on stage, to shock or amaze the audience. Artaud wanted to bombard an audience with impressions, using the whole range of what theatre can offer in terms of light, sound, and anything else that might affect the senses, thus allowing the audience no time to think rationally but aiming instead to awake a gut, emotional response.

Grotowski also aims for a shock response and to create surprising visual images for an audience. But he doesn’t throw the whole technical works of the theatre to an audience, as Artaud does, His theatre is ‘poor theatre’ and throws the whole weight of theatrical expression onto the performer. Props are minimal and may be used to represent a number of things. Lighting is also minimal. Sets are individually designed to fit the play and to take in the audience as close observers on an event to which they are witnesses. The actor’s body is supremely fit and can endure extreme demands on it.

Brook is hard to sum up, since he has changed many times over the years and has experimented with all the practitioners so far mentioned, taking something from each of them. His latter style, though, can be summed up as magical simpicity. He creates an empathy with an audience by starting shows with a ritual. Props, settings and costumes are simple and may be used, like Grotowski, as different things. He likes to tell a story in the most direct way possible and relies on the plasticity of the actors’ bodies to do so, rather than on technical effects.

Having examined the above, focus first of all on ‘A Kind of Alaska’ and divide the

class into small groups or pairs. Each group is to be allotted a practitioner:

Stanislavski, Artaud or Craig and apply this practitioner to the piece. A clue: Craig

might centre on the idea of whiteness; Deborah says near the end ‘This is a white

tent...’ The whiteness can symbolise the white-out in her mind.... etc. ; the group

with Stanislavski may need to look, as I suggested above, at creating a through-line

for Deborah. Have them focus on a manageable section. The group with Artaud may

want to focus on a surreal atmosphere, perhaps using some of the images created

by Deborah’s words and thinking of ways of presenting them. There are strange

flashes of possible abuse in her memories - can this be shown or suggested?

Now try brainstorming ‘Dark of the Moon’, this time using the whole group. Devise a

Craigian setting - all brooding mountainous shapes, the twisted tree, pools and

shadows of directional light. Having discussed it, work out all the entrances and

exits that occur within it on a simulated version [without the mountain size and

shapes, of course] made out of stage blocks.

Next try a Brookian opening. Create a ritual feeling of magic and the wild

tempestuous nature that characterises all the non-human witch-kind, as performed

by a number of ‘witches’. This is an atmosphere-setter to open the piece. The

witches melt into the landscape as John approaches.

Finally, a look at ‘The Three Lives of Lucie Cabrol’. The Brechtian elements are built in anyway, and don’t need experimentation, so long as they remember that the actors are addressing their narration to

25

the audience directly. There are many shocking and surprising images within the extract, suitable for either Artaud [using Total Theatre] or Grotowski [using Poor Theatre.] Complicite clearly favoured the latter[the doubling of buckets as chairs, for instance], so let’s look particularly at Grotowski for this extract.

First of all, ask the group to make a list of the props, things, animals, etc.

mentioned in the extract. Notice how many times a prop is used even in this short

section [buckets = chairs; a bucket of potatoes is emptied to represent the birth of

a child, etc.] Can Lucie’s ‘coffin’ double with any of the other props mentioned?

Then ask them to work through all the stage directions in the piece,

practically, coming up with sensible and imaginative solutions to everything

mentioned. The killing of the pig and the ploughing with a horse should make for

some interesting ideas!

All these exercises will have stretched the student’s imaginations and should enable them to look at any unseen text in a different way, with an eye to its potential for an act of creation - which is of course what any act of theatre is. They should also see how much is a matter of choice. There are many ways

in which any of these plays could be performed. In my teacher’s checklist above, I suggested a Stanislavskian approach to the portrayal of Deborah - but equally she could be done almost blankly, hardly moving her head, with little expression. Try this for the same section that was put under the Stanislavski treatment before and compare the two. Which do they find most effective and why? Students need to remember that choices are theirs. Providing the choices they make in responding to an unseen text are justifiable and well-justified by them and can be seen to be practicable, there is no rigidly ‘right’ way of doing a play.

So far, I have laboured the six practitioners as part of the experience that students can refer to as part of their response to a peice of text. But of course anything they have seen, performed in, read or studied over the two years and more of their drama ‘careers’ is also part of that experience to which they can refer. That includes the studies of pieces of text in this book, all of which, once the exercises are gone through, become part of the ‘experience’ to enrich their theatrical knowledge.

26